Notes on Spiritualism and Psychical Research

July 1996]

Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

NOTES ON THE CAREER OF THE SOMNAMBULE LEONIE

by Alan Gauld
ABSTRACT

This article sketches the career (of which many aspects remain obscure) of the
celebrated late -nineteenth-century French multiple-personality subject Leonie
(Madame B.). Leonie is of historical interest and importance for her apparent
success in experiments on telepathic hypnosis and clairvoyant card-guessing, for
her influence on the dissociationisms of Pierre Janet and of F. W. H. Myers, and
for the role which she played in controversies surrounding the Dreyfus case.

Introduction

One of the best known and most influential of the early cases of multiple
personality was that of the lady known as ‘Madame B.* or (more often) as
‘Leonie’. Her influence on psychopathological and psychological thinking was
scarcely less than that of Felida X. and Louis Vive (on whom see Hacking,
1995), and on psychical research it was much greater. But although she was
investigated by several leading psychologists and psychical researchers (e.g.
Janet, Myers, Richet), and impinged on psychology, psychical research and
even public affairs in ways to which we shall come, she remained until quite
recently a somewhat shadowy figure, and different aspects of her career had
not been publicly brought together.

Leonie first became known outside her own locality, and to the academic
world at large, in 1886, when Pierre Janet, at that time professor of philosophy
at the Lycee of Le Havre, published two articles in the Revue philo sop hique
(Janet, 1886b; 1886c) describing some apparently successful experiments
with her on the induction of hypnosis at a distance. Janet’s articles caused
some stir, and prompted investigations of Leonie by other savants.

In his Revue philo sophique articles of 1886, Janet describes Leonie as an
honest country-woman, and adds that, so far as is known, she has always
enjoyed excellent health, except that since infancy she has been subject to
attacks of natural somnambulism, during which she can talk and describe
the remarkable hallucinations she seems to undergo. In later publications he
modifies these statements considerably. Though he never questions Leonie’s
honesty and simplicity in her normal state, he now notes (Janet, 1888,p.241n)
that there is epilepsy and insanity in her family. She herself was afflicted in
childhood with the most serious hysterical symptoms, which were modified
by an animal-magnetic doctor into a “remarkable magnetic somnambulism’’.
However, the menopause, through which she has recently (1888) passed, has
brought a return of the hysterical symptoms, with violent crises, contractures,
anaesthesia of the left side, and nervous asthma.

Janet always maintained strict secrecy as to the real names of his subjects
and patients, and the late Dr E. J. Dingwall, who wrote at some length about
Leonie, tried hard but unsuccessfully to solve the question of her identity.
However Charles Richet was not quite so discreet as Janet, and in his memoirs

141

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

[Vol.61, No. 844

(Richet, 1933, p.66) says that her surname was ‘Leboulanger’. From Janet’s
own later writings (Janet, 1925, I, 189-192), from incidental references by
other writers, and from the researches of recent scholars — most notably
Jacqueline Carroy (Carroy, 1991; Carroy &: Plas, 1995), to whom I am further
indebted for unpublished information —it is now possible to put together a
fuller, though still very incomplete, account of her career.

Leonie was born in 1837 in Calvados, the child of domestic servants in a
wealthy household. A natural somnambule from childhood, she developed
at about the age of sixteen the hysterical symptoms referred to above. She
was treated by various mesmerists, of whom the most notable was Dr
Alfred Perrier, of Caen. Perrier, an occasional contributor to the Journal du
magnetisme, was locally well known. He seems to have developed in her
a state of ‘artificial’ somnambulism beneficial to her hysterical symptoms.
But he may also have shaped the form of this ‘somnambulism’ according to
certain preconceptions of his own, to which we shall return, and he seems in
addition to have used her to demonstrate some of the more theatrical sides of
somnambulism, for instance dramatic role-playing (see, for example, Janet,
1889, pp. 162 -163). Before long Leonie became known around Caen for the
clairvoyant gifts which she seemed sometimes to exercise in the clairvoyant
state. Word of these gifts reached Madame Mathilde Frigard of Caen, a ruthless
and scheming woman whose sights had become set on the treasures supposedly
concealed in the Chateau of Crevecoeur-en-Auge some 30 km from Caen.
Madame Frigard persuaded Leonie, whose magnetizer she became, to stay at
the Chateau and take part in the treasure-hunt. For many months during 1864
Leonie, and another clairvoyant, Madame Thiebaut of Paris, had visions of
the treasure’s location, and some encouraging discoveries were made. But the
treasure was never found, and all ended disastrously (see Ba'issas, 1992, which
is a prime source of early information about Leonie). Madame Frigard’s
relentless greed shortly afterwards led her to commit a murder, for which she
was tried and convicted (see The Times, 10th-15th August 1867).

By the time of the treasure -hunt Leonie had married and had children. Her
husband, whom Myers later described as a charcoal-burner from the vicinity
of Cherbourg (Myers, 1888-9, p.374), was a certain Jules Frangoise, but
Leonie seems to have continued to use the surname ‘LeBoulanger’ (or
‘Boulanger’ or ‘Boulenger’) when acting as a clairvoyant somnambule. She
remained locally famous in that capacity, and at some unknown place and
time her path crossed that of Dr Joseph Gibert (1829-1899), a prominent
physician of Le Havre (for materials concerning Gibert, see Carroy Sc Plas,
1995, pp. 3 9n-40n). Gibert was an idealist and philanthropist of unquenchable
zeal and total sincerity, tireless in promoting health and hygiene for the poor.
As a Protestant and a Republican, and a passionate defender of justice and
liberty, he became involved in public affairs on a local and national level.

Gibert was keenly interested in the old animal magnetism and the new
hypnotism, to such an extent, indeed, that he was called the ‘Charcot of
Normandy’. Among his subjects was Leonie. In the course of his experiments
with her she several times spontaneously came out with pieces of factual
information which he did not know but which on investigation turned out to
be correct (Dreyfus, 1978, p. 48).

142

July 1996]

Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

In 1883, Pierre Janet came to Havre to take up his appointment as professor
of philosophy, and began to collect materials for the doctoral dissertation that
was later published as L’automatisme psychologique (1889). Through the
good offices of two local medical men, one of whom was Gibert, Janet was
enabled to study a number of highly hypnotizable hysterical subjects, amongst
whom the most influential on the development of his ideas was Leonie.
Indeed Leonie’s influence on Janet and on Gibert, and on others associated
with them, gains her a place of some significance in the histories of psychical
research and of psychopathology; and for a few months towards the end of
the century it brought her an unenviable national notoriety in the political
battles then convulsing France. I shall touch on each of these areas in turn.

Leonie and Psychical Research

Leonie’s importance in the early history of psychical research hinges on the
experiments on telepathic hypnosis conducted with her by Janet and Gibert
in 1885, and subsequently by various members of the Society for Psychical
Research, including Richet. These experiments are extensively discussed by
Dingwall (1967, pp.264-273;cf. Podmore, 1894, pp. 100-112; Myers, 1903,1,
pp. 524-529), and do not require extended notice for present purposes. They
were prompted by the observation that success in inducing her to execute
hypnotic commands was heavily dependent on the degree of concentration
achieved by the hypnotist. Leonie came to Havre, where she stayed with
Gibert’s sister, specially to take part in the experiments. The first two series-
in October 1885 and February -March 1886— were conducted by Janet and
Gibert. Publication of the early results in the Revue philo sophique (Janet,
1886b; 1886c) aroused a good deal of interest, and led to a third series in
April-May 1886, in which various other savants —Paul Janet, Jules Janet,
F. W. H. Myers, A. T. Myers, J. Ochorowicz and L. Marillier —participated
(Myers, 1885 -87b, pp. 13 1-137). The experiments were all of a similar kind.
At a time previously agreed upon by the experimenters, the hypnotists— in
all cases either Gibert or Janet— would strongly will the distant Leonie (distant
anything from a quarter of a mile to a mile) to fall asleep, and sometimes also
to carry out a further action, such as coming to the hypnotist’s house. Over
the three series of experiments, 18 out of 25 trials were classified as successes,
in that Leonie fell asleep within a few minutes of being willed to do so. The
experimenters were well aware of the risk that they might involuntarily give
her cues as to their intentions, and of the need to carry out the trials at
irregular and unpredictable intervals. Whether they wholly succeeded in
avoiding these and other pitfalls is not within the scope of this article to
determine. Some further experiments by Janet alone in the autumn of 1886
had a somewhat less striking success rate (Richet, 1888-89, pp. 43-45). So
far as I know he did not thereafter undertake any further experiments in
telepathy, or even discuss his early involvement with the question.

Another person whose interest was aroused by the publication of the initial
results was the distinguished physiologist Charles Richet, already a member
of the SPR and a contributor to its Proceedings. He had the opportunity
of experimenting on telepathic hypnotism with Leonie while the latter was
staying at the house of M. H. Ferrari in Paris during December 1886 and

143

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

[Vol. 61, No. 844

January 1887. Results were quite impressive (Richet, 1887-88a; 1887-88b;
1888-89, pp.32-42). A further series of experiments under the same
conditions in December 1887 and January 1888 was largely unsuccessful,
which Richet attributed to his own preoccupation with other matters (Richet,

1888- 89, pp. 45-47).

Later in 1888, Leonie spent two and a half months (29th June-1 1th
September) at Richet’s own house in Paris, where he conducted experiments
in card guessing with her (he was a pioneer in the application of statistical
methods to card-guessing experiments). The hypnotized Leonie was required
to guess the identity of playing cards in sealed envelopes (later, in two sealed
envelopes) which she was given to hold. She frequently took many hours over
a single guess — Richet (who was himself ignorant of the identity of the cards)
says “I have frequently sat by her side from 8 p.m. till 6 a.m.” Out of 68
trials, Leonie guessed the card correctly in 12, the suit in 36 and the colour in
45 (Richet, 1889-90, pp. 66-78). However in two further series of experiments,
one at Myers’s house in Cambridge, to which Richet took her in January -
February 1889, and the other in Richet’s Paris house in July -August, results
sank to chance level or very nearly (Richet, 1889 -90, pp. 78 -81).

In addition to her apparent successes as an experimental subject, the
entranced Leonie manifested occasional examples of apparent spontaneous
clairvoyance. Only a few of these are in print. The most interesting took place
on 2nd July 1888, at 8.00 p.m. Richet had just hypnotized Leonie, and
suddenly asked her “What has happened to M. Langlois?” Leonie replied that
he had burned his left hand with a brown liquid. This was absolutely correct.
At 4.00 p.m. that afternoon M. Langlois (Richet’s assistant, known to Leonie)
had burned his left hand in the physiological laboratory with bromine. Richet
adds “I need not say that Leonie had not left my house, nor seen anyone
from my laboratory. Of this I am absolutely certain, and I am certain that I
had not mentioned the incident of the burn to anybody.” (Richet, 1889-90,
pp.69n-70n; cf., for other examples, Richet, 1888-89, p. 164; Bickford-Smith,

1889- 90). Such incidents had no doubt been of greater frequency in the
somnambulic performances which had gained her her original reputation.
Indeed during a discussion of a paper of Richet’s, read to the Society for
Psychical Research in 1888, F. W. H. Myers remarked that he had some years
ago had the opportunity of studying hitherto unpublished records (presumably
Gibert’s) of some of these occurrences which had taken place at Havre ( JSPR
Vol. 3, p.347, 1887-88).

The experiments with Leonie are of modest importance in the history of
psychical research for three reasons. First, Janet’s accounts of his experiments
with her, appearing as they did in the Revue philosophique, were important
landmarks in the academic publication of papers on psychical research and
generated a fair amount of interest in France and indeed Britain. Second,
these experiments reinforced the long-established and highly influential
tradition that mesmeric and hypnotic states (whatever they may be), and
other altered states of consciousness, facilitate the exercise of telepathic and
clairvoyant gifts. Third, some of the principal experimenters were either well
known already in the world of science and medicine, or about to become so.
Richet, although his Nobel Prize lay in the future, had succeeded to the chair

144

July 1996] Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

of physiology at the Paris Faculty of Medicine in 1887, and Janet was about to
begin publication of the series of articles and books that made him (especially
after the appearance of William James's Principles of Psychology in 1890)
one of the best known psychologists in the world. That men of such calibre
had involved themselves in psychical research helped to improve the subject's
status in the learned world.

Leonie and Psychopathology

Janet's most important psychological work was just beginning, and Leonie
played an important part in its inception. In a series of articles (Janet, 1886 a;
1886d; 1887 ; 1888; cf. Myers, 1903, 1, pp. 322 -331), and in his L'automatisme
psychologique (1889), he developed, on the basis of his experiments with
‘hysterical’ patients, the foundation concepts of his highly influential
theoretical standpoint. In these hysterical patients, Janet distinguished between
‘total automatisms’ and ‘partial automatisms’. Total automatisms— for instance
catalepsy, fugue, somnambulism, alternating personality — involve the whole
person. Partial automatisms — for instance hysterical limb anaesthesias or
paralyses, pendulum swinging, dowsing, table-tipping, automatic writing —
involve mental or psychophysiological elements or systems as it were cut off
from the main current of conscious life.

Many partial automatisms are to a greater or lesser extent intelligent, most
dramatically perhaps in the case of well-developed automatic writing. It is to
be presumed that some sort of conscious intelligence, sometimes rudimentary,
sometimes quite complex, must lie behind these automatisms (Janet, 1889,
p.22). Janet sometimes refers to the more developed examples of such
intelligences as subconscious or secondary personalities. A subconscious
secondary personality of this kind exists simultaneously with the main stream
of consciousness. Janet regards these ‘dissociated’ streams of consciousness
as resulting from a ‘failure of synthesis’ in the main consciousness due to a
‘general cerebral exhaustion’ characteristic of hysteria. The main consciousness
becomes unable to ‘hold together’ or ‘synthesize’ all the elements of conscious
life at one time, thus occasioning hysterical anaesthesias, shrinkages of sensory
fields, etc. Sometimes the excluded sensations may become synthesized into
a second perception, a second psychological existence, and further synthesis
among the extruded elements may result in a rudimentary or indeed more
than rudimentary secondary personality (Janet, 1889, p.317) existing so to
speak alongside the principal personality.

Janet developed a number of ingenious stratagems for tapping these
supposed secondary personalities even while the main personality was awake
and active. There was, for example, the ‘method of distraction’, which he often
demonstrated with Leonie. This involved distracting the patient’s attention,
for instance by having an assistant engage her in conversation, and, while she
was thus occupied, creeping up behind and giving her trivial commands in a
low voice. Often the subject would obey the command intelligently without
realizing that she had received it, so indicating the simultaneous existence of
two dissociated streams of consciousness.

In Leonie’s case, as in others, the secondary personality thus tapped was
demonstrably continuous with the consciousness of the ‘somnambulic’ state

145

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

[Vol.61, No. 844

produced by hypnosis (or rather by mesmerism). The secondary personality
(which called itself Leontine) would claim responsibility for the bizarre actions
carried out while the main personality had been distracted. In fact Leontine’s
memory was altogether wider than Leonie’s, and included a detailed knowledge
not only of her own actions and experiences but of Leonie’s also. Leonie,
on the other hand, knew of Leontine’s existence only indirectly through the
effects of her often somewhat mischievous actions (cf. Myers, 1885 -87a, pp.
246-251; 1903, 1, pp. 322-326).

Leonie and Leontine were very different characters (Janet, 1889, pp. 128-
129; Myers, 1887-88, p.319). Leonie was a quiet, slow, timid, rather dull,
middle-aged peasant woman, a good Catholic, a good worker about the
house, absolutely honest and exceedingly loyal to her friends. Leontine was
altogether livelier (sometimes excessively so), a Protestant, a conversationalist
who could hold her own with savants, and considerably less suggestible than
the simple-minded Leonie, for whom she was full of a contempt that could
take a practical and somewhat spiteful turn. Sometimes Leontine would
emerge spontaneously, and sometimes too she would manifest her presence by
surreptitious actions while Leonie held centre stage.

Leontine’s origins were largely lost in the distant past, when Leonie had
been treated, or utilized, by mesmeric doctors. Also dating from that era was
a third personality, Leonore, of whose existence Janet was at first unaware.
Leonore would emerge when Leontine was in turn subjected to prolonged
mesmerization. Leonore was a more serious and responsible character than
Leontine, whom she regarded as a frivolous chatterbox, and would advise or
warn, and also frighten, by means of an intrusive hallucinatory voice. However
Richet tells us (Richet, 1889-90, p.77n) that while Leonie and Leontine
were both absolutely honest, Leonore would sometimes try to cheat in his
experiments with her.

Of all Janet’s subjects in this early but formative stage in the development
of his ideas, Leonie was the one who impressed him most. In 1919 he remarked
that it was “quite possible that the observation of these states of complete
somnambulism in Leonie became a motive leading me to make my researches
on the other patients” (Janet, 1925, p.800). Now Janet’s dissociationist
approach to the understanding of psychopathological phenomena was for a
time very influential on his contemporaries, and although for many decades
thereafter he was eclipsed by Freud, he has of late (and especially since the
publication in 1970 of Henri Ellenberger's monumental The Discovery of the
Unconscious) been rising to prominence again. There is a flourishing school
of modern neo-dissociationists who carry dissociationism well beyond the
realm of psychopathology, and who look to him as their ancestor (on modern
dissociationism see for instance Lynn & Rhue, 1994). One might even say that
distant echoes of Leonie’s influence still linger.

Janet’s studies of hysterical patients were also very influential on F. W. H.
Myers (e.g. Myers, 1903, 1, pp.322 -33 1), who had in addition had opportunities
of observing Leonie for himself. Myers’s theory of the subliminal self has
strong affinities with Janet’s dissociationism, and was explicitly or implicitly
adopted as a framework of thought by many psychical researchers until well
after the middle of the twentieth century. So one might say that Leonie

146

July 1996] Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

deserves a footnote, or perhaps more than a footnote, in the history of theory
in psychical research.

Leonie influenced Janet’s thinking in a further way. Her transition from her
normal to her somnambulic state (and also her transition from her second to
her third state) was marked by a period of lethargy in which contraction of
the arm muscles could be brought about by pressure, and might be transferred
to the contralateral arm through application of a magnet. Thereafter she would
pass spontaneously through a series of substages, carefully documented by
Janet (Janet, 1886d; cf. Myers, 1885-87b, pp. 182-184) into a state of true
catalepsy in which, with eyes open, suggestions of familiar or habitual actions
or poses would be carried out automatically. From catalepsy she would move,
again through various intermediate substages, into lucid somnambulism, and
from somnambulism, likewise through intermediate stages, back to lethargy.

In an early paper (Janet, 1886 d), Janet used these observations not exactly
to cast doubt on the influential claims of Charcot and his school, who held
that there were three definable stages of grand hypnotisme, lethargy, catalepsy
and somnambulism, each initiated by certain physical stimuli, but to hint that
these claims were over-simple and might require modification. Later (Janet,
1925, I, pp. 187-192) he used them to offer an explanation of how Charcot
and his followers at the Salpetriere came to be so egregiously misled. Janet
states that he eventually obtained the notes made by Dr Perrier of Caen, one
of Leonie’s original mesmerizers, of his sittings with her, and that he also read
articles contributed by Perrier around the same time to the Journal de mag-
netisme. He learned that in 1860, and even earlier, Perrier was distinguishing
phases in the mesmeric sleep of his subjects, and was already characterizing
them by modifications of sensibility, by cataleptic postures, and by reflex
contractions induced by various stimuli (Janet, 1925, 1, p. 190). The hypnotic
phases which he, Janet, had witnessed with Leonie were relics of these earlier
phases.

Janet goes on to cite other mesmeric writers of the mid nineteenth century
who distinguished somewhat comparable phases of the mesmeric state, and
concludes that “though we do not find a verbatim anticipation of Charcot’s
teachings in these books on magnetism, we find a sufficient number of the
elements of that teaching to enable us to affirm that the doctrine of the three
states and of the physical modifications characteristic of them derives from
the old theory and practice of animal magnetism” (Janet, 1925, 1, p. 191).
Janet offers some further speculations about how these doctrines may have
been introduced into the Salpetriere, and become embodied in the behaviour
of Charcot’s star subjects. It would, however, take us too far afield to pursue
the matter further.

Leonie and the Dreyfus Affair

The last, least known, and most unlikely aspect of Leonie’s career is her
emergence as a bit-player in that most notorious of French causes celebres,
the Dreyfus affair. In 1894 Alfred Dreyfus, a captain in the French army, was
convicted of selling military secrets to a foreign power, and condemned to life
imprisonment on Devil’s Island. Dreyfus, who was of Jewish stock, was totally
innocent and had been framed. There was a strong element of anti-Semitism

147

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

[ Vol.61, No. 844

in the furious controversies that surrounded the case until his final complete
exoneration in 1906. Gibert, passionate as always in the cause of Truth and
Justice, quickly became a keen dreyfusard. He had Leonie come to his house
and held somnambulic seances with her, at which, apparently, he sought to
obtain clairvoyant information relevant to the case. He also persuaded Alfred’s
brother, Mathieu Dreyfus (the Dreyfus family, like the family of Gibert’s
wife, were mill-owners from Mulhouse), a principal campaign organizer, to
come to Havre for a seance. Leonie gave Mathieu various pieces of correct
information about his wife and children, and, speaking as though she could
see Alfred, said in a somewhat puzzled way that he was wearing spectacles.
Mathieu pointed out that Alfred always wore an eyeglass, but it later transpired
that he had found it necessary to change to spectacles.

Mathieu was sufficiently impressed to return to Havre on several further
occasions, where he received from Leonie (that is, from Leontine) various
names and pieces of information of definite relevance to the case (Dreyfus,
1978, pp.48-51). He became interested in hypnosis himself, and was
instructed by Gibert in the necessary techniques. Leonie then came to stay
with Mathieu’s sister in Paris. He seems to have carried out, with apparent
success, experiments resembling those that Richet and Janet had previously
undertaken with her (Dreyfus, 1978, pp. 64-65). And she continued to
provide information ostensibly relevant to the case and the campaign, and to
have clairvoyant visions of the distant Alfred. On one occasion she announced
that the latter could no longer see the sea— they had constructed a stockade
around his hut (Carroy 8c Plas, 1995, p.57; Bredin, 1987, pp. 117n-l 18n).
This, though not known in France at the time, turned out to be correct. It
seems that Leonie, who had a strong sense of justice, threw herself into the
work with enthusiasm.

Gibert was a prominent dreyfusard in his own right, and he became the
object of some press speculation after Felix Faure became President of the
Republic in 1895. Faure came from Havre and had been a patient and friend
of Gibert’s. Rumours spread that he had granted Gibert a private interview and
had revealed to him a fact of great potential importance to the pro-Dreyfus
campaign. Not surprisingly the press got wind of Gibert’s seances with Leonie.
They were first mentioned in print towards the end of 1897; and for three
months after Gibert’s death in March 1899 they received a good deal of
publicity in what came to be called V affaire Gibert . (Somewhat surprisingly
Leonie’s surname does not seem to have found its way into the newspapers.)
For antidrey fusards the discovery of Gibert’s association with Leonie, and of
the possible role of her clairvoyant revelations in the campaign, was a boon.
For drey fusards it was a considerable embarrassment. Some responded by
emphasizing the serious and scientific nature of Gibert’s work on hypnosis;
others hinted that the involvement with Leonie was a senile aberration; a few
even denied her very existence.

A much more detailed account of Gibert’s and Leonie’s roles in the affair
is given in a recent, very informative article by Carroy and Plas (1995), who
are, so far as I know, the first writers to bring together all the aspects of
Leonie’s career. It is curious that recent historians of the Dreyfus affair (e.g.
Bredin, 1987, pp. 116 -118), though they deal with the matter of Gibert’s

148

July 1996]

Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

somnambule, have generally speaking not bothered to look further into
Leonie 's antecedents and her role in Janet’s experiments, a role which was in
fact clearly spelled out in 1903 by Joseph Reinach in a footnote to his Histoire
de l’ affaire Dreyfus (Reinach, 1903, p.172). It is even more curious that
neither Richet (a strongly committed dreyfusard) nor Janet (a more cautious
one) mentions Leonie’s involvement in the Dreyfus affair, though both of
them wrote about her long after it was over.

These brief notes on Leonie’s career are intended simply to outline what is
currently known about her. A fuller account of her “strange and eventful life”
(a project which tempted Janet— Janet, 1925, 1, p.189) might present her as
caught up in, and also reflecting back into and influencing, several interesting
movements of her time— animal magnetism and its links with French occultism;
hypnotism and its affiliations with psychopathology; the vogue of multiple
personality disorder in France; the beginnings of psychical research; the
political agitation just mentioned. But at the moment the gaps in our know-
ledge of her career are perhaps too large for such an undertaking.

Several photographs of Leonie have survived. The best I have seen are
two taken by Eveleen Myers (F. W. H. Myers's wife) during Leonie’s visit to
Cambridge. They are reproduced in W. T. Stead’s Real Ghost Stories (Stead,
1891, pp. 18-19). One is of Leonie, placid and serious, the other of Leontine,
relaxed, eyes closed, and with an appropriately enigmatic slight smile.

Department of Psychology
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD

REFERENCES

Baissas, J. (1992) Les trtsors du ch&teau de Crevecoeur-en-Auge. Paris: Res Universis.
[First published in 1867],

Bickford-Smith, R. A. H. (1889-90) Experiments with Madame B. in September, 1889.
JSPR 3, 186-188.

Bredin, J. D. (1987) The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus. London: Sidgwick &
Jackson.

Carroy, J. (1991) Hypnose, suggestion et psychologie : L’ invention des sujets. Paris:
Presses universitaires de France.

Carroy, J. and Plas, R. (1995) Dreyfus et la somnambule. Critique 51, 36-59.

Dingwall, E. J. (1967) Hypnotism in France, 1800-1900. In Dingwall, E. J. (ed.)
Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena: A Survey of Nineteenth-Century Cases. /., 1-328.
London: J. & A. Churchill.

Dreyfus, M. (1978) L‘ affaire telle que je I’aivecue. Paris: Bernard Grasset.

Ellenberger, H. F. (1970) The Discovery of the Unconscious : The History and Evolution
of Dynamic Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.

Hacking, I. ( 1995) Rewriting the Soul : Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory.
Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press.

Janet, P. (1886a) Les actes inconscientes et la dedoublement de la personnalite pendant le
somnambulisme provoqu^. Revue philo sophique 22, 577-592.

Janet, P. (1886b) Deuxieme note sur le sommeil provoque a distance et la suggestion
mentale pendant l’etat somnambule. Revue philo sophique 22, 212-223.

Janet, P. (1886c) Note sur quelques ph^nomenes de somnambulisme. Revue philo soph-
ique 21, 190-198.

149

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

[Vol.61, No. 844

Janet, P. (1886d) Les phases intermediaires de l’hypnotisme. Revue scientifique 23,
577-587.

Janet, P. (1887) L’anesthesie systematise et la dissociation des phenomenes psycholog-
iques. Revue philosophique 23, 449-472.

Janet, P. (1888) Les actes inconscients et la memoire pendant le somnambulismeprovoqu£.
Revue philosophique 25, 238-279.

Janet, P. (1889) L’automatisme psychologique : Essai de psychologie experimental sur
les formes inferieures de l’ activity humaine. Paris: F. Alcan.

Janet, P. (1925) Psychological Healing: A Historical and Clinical Study (2 vols.). New
York: Macmillan. [Translation of Les medications psychologiques 3 vols. Paris: F.
Alcan, 1919].

Lynn, S.J.and Rhue,J. (eds.) (1994) Dissociation: Clinical and Theoretical Perspectives.
New York : The Guilford Press.

Myers, F. W. H. (1885-87a) Automatic writing. III. ProcSPR 4, 209-261.

Myers, F. W. H. (1885 -87 b) On telepathic hypnotism and its relation to other forms of
hypnotic suggestion. ProcSPR 4, 127-188.

Myers, F. W. H. (1887-88) Multiplex personality. JSPR 3, 319-320.

Myers, F. W. H. (1888-89) French experiments on strata of personality. ProcSPR 5,
374-397.

Leonie (photo by Eveleen Myers)

150

July 1996]

Notes on the Career of the Somnambule Leonie

Leontine (photo by Eveleen Myers ) National Portrait Gallery, London

Myers, F. W. H. (1903) Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death (2 vols).
London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Podmore, F. (1894) Apparitions and Thought-Transference : An Examination of the
Evidence for Telepathy. London: Walter Scott.

Reinach, J. (1903) His t oir e de T affaire Dreyfus Vol.2. Paris: Librairie Charpentier et
Fasquelle.

Richet,C. (1887-88a) Recent experiments by M. Charles Richet on telepathic hypnotism.
JSPR 3, 222-226.

Richet, C. (1887-88b) Sommeil a distance. JSPR 3, 150-152.

Richet, C. (1888-89) Relation de diverses experiences sur la transmission mentale, la
lucidite, et autres ph^nom£nes non explicables par les donnees scientifiques actuelles.
ProcSPR 5, 18-168.

Richet, C. (1889-90) Further experiments in hypnotic lucidity or clairvoyance. ProcSPR
6, 66-83.

Richet, C. (1933) Souvenirs d’un physiologiste. Paris: Peyronnet.

Stead, W. T. (1891) Real Ghost Stories. London : The Review of Reviews.

151